Before Big Bang God or Singularity

ICANT, speaking as a college student, I can understand why other people here are frustrated with you. I had the same attitude as you now seem to have, too. I'm a chemistry student more than a physics student, although I think I will declare both as my major. When I first started learning this chemistry stuff back in high school, I thought it was soooo easy. Everything I read in the book made perfect sense to me. Then of course came the first test and I totally bombed it. The lesson I learned that day was that self-delusion could be a very real thing.We could always tell ourselves that we understand something inside-out and that our conclusions must be just as good, if not better, than the conclusions of real experts. As long as we have this mindset, we will never learn anything. As a college student, I realized long ago that layman's stuff probably only tell about 3% or so of the whole story. How do I know this? Before I started taking college physics, I had read many many books by prominent physicists. I really honestly thought I knew most of the stuff about physics. Then it hit me while I was taking my first physics courses that all the stuff I read in all those books were just the very thin gloss layer of a much bigger globe than I initially imagined.Hawking is a very smart man. I've read his books very carefully, and yet I still few nervous when a conversation like this comes up because I know that I only know just the most basic stuff about it and that beyond this basic stuff is a whole world of knowledge that for now I can't even imagine.In regard to chemistry, I've taken quite a few chemistry courses and I'm still struggling with the current courses. The big bang theory along with the rest of modern physics (just like chemistry) is not something that we can read a few pages written in layman's terms and then claim to know what it's all about.Hopefully, you will think it over before you continue to make these inaccurate assumptions. We are talking about topics that have taken very very very smart people whole lifetimes to work on. By reading a few words on the matter and claiming yourself an expert on it, you are basically downplaying the whole of modern science. If indeed anyone can read a few layman's words and be an expert on the topic, then we could effectively close down all colleges and universities everywhere because there wouldn't be a need for them.

One day you'll regret saying that when I'll use everything I'm learning now to effectively prove creationism

quote:

---

When you make a wrong assumption do your Professors revile you or do they explain where you are wrong?

---

You are assuming that you are capable of understanding the explanation. It's happened to me before. You have to understand that most of this stuff is very very hard to explain without using mathematics. I'm not talking about 1+2 kinda math. I'm talking about pages after pages of abstract mathematical concepts that would make physics and math grad students have a really bad headache.It's happened to me before.

quote:

---

I do not claim to be an expert on science that is why I am here to pick these smart peoples brain so I can learn.

---

Then pick something else that is less complicated. People spend their whole lives studying these things, and you expect physicists on here to be able to explain them to you in a few short paragraphs? If it were that simple, I wouldn't be in college right now.

quote:

---

Now if your definition of expert is a drip under pressure I would have to claim that one because these guys have put me under pressure and keep me there. But how else can I learn at my age.

---

Ok, so I'm assuming you're an old guy. I have a friend that goes to the university of chicago, and he told me that he met a woman who was in her late 60's that was working on her phd. Honestly, these things that you are discussing are not things that can be questioned and answered, especially when one or two parties involved didn't have the background.

quote:

---

If my conclusion I draw from what Dr. Hawking said is wrong all anybody has to do is to take his words and show me my assumptions are incorrect.

---

See, this is why people here are frustrated with you. You are making 2 assumptions that are completely wrong: 1 You are assuming that these kinds of things can be expressed only in words and 2 you are assuming that you are capable of understanding the explanation.Last year, I attended a seminar where there was a guest lecturer talking about quantum states and how physicists and engineers have been able to build the quantum computer using concepts that only a few years ago were purely conceptual and abstract. Anyway, most of the lecture the lecturer was writing mathematical stuff on the board that I couldn't make head or tail out of them. The grad students there were scratching their heads, too. In fact, a few professors admitted that they got lost in some areas.These kinds of stuff can't be adequately explained in a few short words and they certainly can't be understood by someone that hasn't spent years or even decades thinking about them and working on them.

quote:

---

No I am called everything in the book but no explanation.

---

Sometimes, you have to realize that you can't understand everything there is to understand. If these concepts are that easy to explain and understand, I'm pretty sure a lot more people would be physicists and professors.

Percy writes

quote:

---

Through the 1st third of the 20th century it was assumed that the universe was eternal and static. The only supporting evidence for this view was that the stars in the sky appeared unchanging, though I suppose the occasional nova was a small clue that this view wasn't correct.

---

ICANT writes

quote:

---

You mean the Big Bang Theory was not put forth to take the place of the static universe?

---

Percy, from the sound of ICANT, I think he meant the steady state theory, not the static universe. The expanding universe wasn't in conflict with the steady state theory. The problem for steady state theory were the really old objects like quasars and globular clusters.